AWINZ – a registered charity spends $126,850 on defamation proceedings over four years

The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (“AWINZ”), an unincorporated charitable trust, allegedly “established” by Deed of Trust on 1 March 2000, was registered as a charity (Reg. No. 11235) with the Charities Commission on 28 September 2007. This charity (henceforth referred to as “AWINZ”), spent a total of $126,850 [ref. 1] in legal fees over four years (1 July 2006 to 30 June 2010) in bringing defamation proceedings against a ‘whistleblower’ – Private Investigator, Mrs Grace Haden of Auckland, who has been raising serious complaints since March 2006 with the Charities Commission and other enforcement agencies over the alleged corrupt practices of Auckland barrister Neil Edward Wells [to right], Settlor of the AWINZ Trust Deed, and AWINZ the “Approved Organisation” (as defined under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 – henceforth referred to as “AWINZ – AO“).

It is critical to grasp the distinction between “AWINZ-AO”, which was never constituted as a trust, and AWINZ the unincorporated charitable trust, allegedly established on 1 March 2000 by means of an executed Deed of Trust (after an amendment to the AWINZ deed and the appointment of other trustees in 2006 it was later granted charity status in 2007 – Reg. No. CC 11235).

AWINZ -AO, a private law enforcement authority which operated in Waitakere City using the council’s staff, infrastructure and resources, was run by Neil Edward Wells – at that time manager of dog and stock control. Its expenses were paid through rates but its profits were private.

Neil Edward Wells has sought to convince the Courts and those he has sought funds from, that the unincorporated charitable trust AWINZ and AWINZ-AO are one and the same entity and that AWINZ arose from AWINZ-AO via a seamless transition involving Ministerial approval. He put it this way when soliciting for funds on behalf of AWINZ in 2004 and 2005 from “Beauty With Compassion” (BWC), an organisation (dissolved by 2006) which campaigned against the use of animals for testing of cosmetic products:

“The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand has been functioning since its inception in 1998 as the channel for animal welfare inspectors at Waitakere and North Shore Cities. AWINZ is one of only two “approved organisations” recognised by the Minister of Agriculture and Gazetted as such. The other is the SPCA…. [Emphasis added]

“AWINZ would be happy to take on any residual funds from BWC and The New Zealand Fund for Humane Research [of which Wells was a founding Trustee – see later discussion].”

In a plea for money sent to all Waitakere City Council dog owners in June 2006 under the Council logo and AWINZ logo, Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of AWINZ, Winifred (Wyn) Hoadley QSO [appointed 10 May 2006] wrote:

“The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand established in 1999, is partnering with Waitakere City Council to provide the very best of services for our animals …….. HELP THE WAITAKERE ANIMAL WELFARE FUND ….. [Coupon details] … here’s my donation ….. Tick box $10 …. $250 or other etc. Please return to PO Box 60 208 Titirangi, Auckland… AWINZ is an “approved organisation” under section 121 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.”

A similar pitch for donations was made by AWINZ to dog owners in 2007.

AWINZ-AO was first notified of its “approved organisation” [AO] status, under section 121(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, in a letter dated 19 December 2000 from the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Jim Sutton, based on an application made by Neil Wells only, dated 22 November 1999, which was after the Act was passed in October 1999, and before the Act came into effect on 1 January 2000. More importantly, the official application was lodged before the unincorporated charitable trust “AWINZ” was allegedly “established on 1 March 2000“.

The Minister’s decision concerning AWINZ-AO was first gazetted on 18 January 2001, nine months after the AWINZ Deed of Trust had been allegedly duly executed on 1 March 2000, and 14 months after the formal application was made. Therefore the Minister’s decision did NOT relate to AWINZ at all. Minister Sutton made it clear is his letter of 19 December 1999, that his granting of “approved organisation” status was to the applicant AWINZ-AO, (“AWINZ” being at that time only the trading name of an an animal enforcement agency), which made its first and only application for “approved organisation” status in a letter dated 21 November 1999, addressed to Minister of Agriculture the Hon. John Luxton. The application was written and signed and submitted by Mr Neil Edward Wells and no one else.

Whistle-blower Mrs Grace Haden has pointed out publicly that a clear case of identity fraud was involved in this application to the Minister because Neil Edward Wells signed himself as “Trustee – AWINZ”, when in fact no such trust had been established at that time.Therefore the unincorporated charitable trust AWINZ – allegedly established on 1 March 2000 was NOT the applicant for “approved organisation” status, and could not have been the “approved organisation”.

Sutton made it clear in his letter that this granting of “approved organisation” status was conditional upon AWINZ -AO, the animal enforcement agency operated by Neil Wells, fulfilling certain requirements and it had until 30 March 2001 to fulfil these.

In 2006 when questions of the independent legal existence of AWINZ-AO arose, Mr Neil Wells made an attempt to use the court to prove that which normal business practices could not prove, alleging that the “Approved Organisation” (AWINZ-AO), a law enforcement agency with coercive statutory powers, was in reality the charitable trust. He did so despite the fact that no other person apart from himself had ever had dealings with the application, administration or functions of the “Approved Organisation”. His letter of application and accompanying documents sent to Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. John Luxton, dated 22 November 1999, on behalf of “AWINZ-AO” contained the signatures of no other persons and no consent was given jointly or severally by the alleged trustees of the not yet established trust.

Through measures normally reserved for identity fraud, it was alleged in Court by the plaintiff Neil Edward Wells, in defamation proceedings he began against Grace Haden and her company Verisure Ltd, on 18 July 2006, that AWINZ-AO the “approved organisation” was in reality a charitable trust (“AWINZ”) established by deed three months after it purportedly made the application to Minster of Agriculture, the Hon. John Luxton, on 22 November 1999, for “approved status” (under the Animal Welfare Act 1999).

However, no charitable trust with the name AWINZ had ever been established prior to 1 March 2000 and the applicant for “approved organisation” status could not have been made by the unincorporated AWINZ charitable trust, which later went on to gain approval as a registered charity with the Charities Commission on 28 September 2007.

The total income of AWINZ over the four period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2010 was $106,639 and it was able over these four years to fund the $126,850 legal case mounted by the Settlor of the Trust’s Deed, Mr Neil Edward Wells, and two of his fellow trustees, as well as make payments totalling $31,249 to a part-the employee of the unincorporated “charitable trust” – Christine Raewyn Wells, wife of Neil Edward Wells, for her “film monitoring wages (including PAYE)”.

At the AWINZ Board meeting on 10 May 2006, Neil Well’s wife, Christine Wells, who was not a trustee, was appointed treasurer of AWINZ and she was authorised as a signatory to sign cheques on behalf of AWINZ. Two signatures were required for all outgoing payments. Three trustees were authorised to sign cheques plus Christine.

AWINZ failed to provide its original signed Deed of Trust (supposedly dated 1 March 2000 – if it ever existed) to the Charities Commission and yet it was granted charity status on 28 September 2007. Its stated “charitable purpose” is “to promote the welfare of animals exclusively in New Zealand”. However, there is no evidence, according to ‘whistle-blower’ Grace Haden, that it is has achieved anything of “public benefit”, and/or engaged in any activities that serve some “charitable purpose””, since it became a registered charity. Its small income comes from the “monitoring of animals in movies” to prevent ill-treatment: a business venture that provides an income for Christine Wells, wife of the Settlor of the Trust – Neil Wells.

The AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2005, the only AWINZ Deed of Trust document available on the Charities website, states in section 4 that “in furtherance of this [charitable] purpose” AWINZ is “To “apply all funds and assets of the Trust within New Zealand towards furthering the exclusively charitable objects, aims and purposes…. (b) To prevent ill treatment to and assist in the relief of suffering of animals. {c) To provide animal welfare services…” etc.

Funding personal defamation proceedings using funds from a registered charity which is unincorporated and which has as its sole stated purpose – the “promotion of animal welfare”, is a flagrant misuse of charity funds, especially when: (1) the legal action was directed by the Settlor of the Trust, Auckland barrister and plaintiff Neil Edward Wells, AND the named charity (AWINZ), which is not a legal entity, (2) the defendant was Grace Haden who had raised numerous complaints with the Charities Commission since 2006 concerning the alleged corruption involving AWINZ (Haden later pointed out to the Commission that the trust is being used in a manner akin to money laundering – that is converting charitable funds to the private income of one person), and (3) charity money was used to secure a ‘win’ for the plaintiff and none of the award costs, which have been paid out, have been returned to the charity, as evidenced by AWINZ financial statements.

The Trustees have chosen to categorise the “Grace Haden legal costs” incurred by “AWINZ” over the four years (2006-10), as “Service Provision Costs” in their official explanation to the Charities Commission. Such recorded costs involve no other items other than the costs incurred by Mr Neil Edward Wells and his fellow trustees in pursuing a defamation claim against Grace Haden. In recent weeks the litigation has involved Trustee Neil Edward Wells seeking to force Haden’s company Verisure Ltd into liquidation.

In law, defamation proceedings can only be taken by real legal “Persons” – that is named individual[s] and or legal entities, and NOT by unincorporated bodies such as unincorporated trusts. Despite this legal prohibition, Mr Neil Edward Wells took defamation proceedings in his own name, and claims of passing off and breach of fair trade in the names alleged fellow trustees, and yet all the tax invoices issued by Brookfields Lawyers of Auckland for this defamation case were sent to their client (the plaintiff) identified only as “AWINZ” located at the private P.O. Box of Neil Edward Wells, Titirangi.

All of the $126,538 of legal costs for which we have invoices for , were issued to AWINZ C/- Neil Wells, by Brookfields and paid for by AWINZ “charity funds” for actions which predate the signing of the 2006 trust deed that is registered with the Charities Commission. And yet “Legal costs – Haden” appear as expenditure items in the AWINZ Financial Statements in each of the years (2007-2010)

Former Charities Commission employee Mr Chris McIntyre, Senior Analyst – Monitoring and Investigatons – dealt with a number of the complaints raised by Mrs Haden against AWINZ over the period 2007 to 2012. But no action was ever taken against AWINZ by this employee of the tax-payer funded Crown entity – The Charities Commission – throughout the prolonged legal proceedings funded by AWINZ “charity money”. McIntyre, who no longer works for Charities, received full documentation from Mrs Haden relating to her serious allegations against AWINZ of corruption and money-laundering and no action was taken.

The oldest set of AWINZ Financial Statements registered with the Charities Commission are those for 2007, and these record total assets of $110,226 as at 30 June 2007. The bulk of these funds ($98,208) constitute the so-called “Lord Dowding Fund” [“LDF”] which, according to Haden, Mr Wells solicited from a now defunct incorporated society called Beauty With Compassion which gave in excess of $100,000 to Mr Wells in 2005. As at the 30 June 2008 total AWINZ net assets were $105,148 and this included $90,000 in the LDF. By 30 June 2009 the LDF had been reduced to $44,000.

The Lord Dowding Fund is mentioned in s. 4. (“Purpose”),s. 5. (“Powers”) and s. 18 (“Interpretation”) of the AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2012. S. 18 defines it as having been:

“… established by the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research on 14th August 1981 for the purpose of sponsoring or otherwise supporting research directed to the discovery of viable alternative techniques to replace living animals in scientific investigations.”

These funds can only be used for the charitable purposes and these do not include funding the personal defamation proceedings entered into by the Settlor of AWINZ, Neil Edward Wells/ against Mrs Grace Haden.

Neil Edwards Wells was a founding Trustee of the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research which was incorporated as a charitable trust on 14 August 1981 under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 (Reg. No. 212230). Wells remains trustee of this allegedly defunct trust which has not yet been deregistered and Haden points out that in the meantime, as the sole remaining trustee, Neil Edward Wells, persists in operating it as those it is very much ‘alive’.

The channeling of charity money from the Lord Dowding Fund into AWINZ occurred prior the AWINZ being registered as a charity with the Charities Commission or in the period after it was registered when it was not required to submit financial statements. The allegations of corruption that Mrs Haden has made include the unlawful use of this money to fund a defamation case, taken by an unincorporated trust, AWINZ, which is not a legal entity in its own right.

All of the $126,850 of legal costs for invoices that have been cited, were issued to AWINZ by Brookfields and paid for by AWINZ “charity funds” for actions which predate the signing of the 2006 trust deed. There is also the serious allegation that none of the costs awarded against the defendent (Mrs Haden), and paid out by her to AWINZ Trustees Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley, have been disclosed in the Financial accounts of AWINZ. Mrs Haden contends that Mr Neil Edward Wells benefited financially from the tens of thousands of dollars paid out in costs, exemplary costs and damages, in a legal case that was funded entirely by charity money.

2. In the donation solicitations by Wells he claims to be administrating the Lord Dowding fund for the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research, but this trust has ceased to exist despite it still being shown on the Register of incorporated charitable trusts. It was Mr Heather’s wife Lucille who ran Beauty With Compassion. Her society was wound up. She gave the money, some $100,000 used for litigation, through to Wells on 15 March 2005. The three previous trustees of the NZ Fund for Humane Research are all very elderly or dead. Wells is the only one who is continuing to pretend this trust continues.

“The [AWINZ] Board shall consist of not less than 4 nor more than 8 members, provided that where a vacancy occurs the remaining trustees may act until a replacement Trustee is appointed. The initial members of the Board shall be the four signatories who signed this Deed as Trustees.”

Clause 7.2 (b)

“The Trustees may appoint up to 4 additional Trustees. Before appointing additional Trustees under thisclause the Board wil consult with its strategic partners and have regard to the needs of the Trust…”

Neil Edward Wells – Trustee from 01/03/ 2000 (Settlor)Wyn Norien Hoadley – appointed as NEW Trustee on 10/05/06 – intended appointment notified to MAF as required in Memorandum of Understanding with MAF. Appointment agreed to by MAF. Appointed as per clause 7.2(b) of the Deed of Trust as “an additional Trustee”. Wyn Hoadley appointed Chairperson.Nuala Mary Grove Trustee from 01/03/2000 – appointed secretaryGraeme John Coutts – Trustee from 01/03/2000Christine Raewyn Wells – appointed treasurer on 10/05/06Priya Sundar

Comments

So what is the outcome, surely these fraudsters have not got away with such a blatant case of corruption?What of the Minster of the time John Luxton has he been made accountable for lax use of New Zealand law and the contribution he has made to this corrupt organisation. Without his signature it would have stopped there.

I have battled this for six years apparently the government condones this action and the lawyers for these people, Brookfields are doing every thing they can to stop me from having justice through the court I update on my website http://www.anticorruption.co.nz

the very first thing that should have happened is that MAF should have questioned why the organization did not exist.. But this is New Zealand and we do not check we just cover up when things go wrong.